Our Divided Political Heart
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-30/our-divided-political-heart
After months of presidential primaries across the country, Texas voters handed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination yesterday. The Republican Party will formally nominate Romney at the GOP convention in August. The campaign now begins in earnest. The economy continues to weigh most on voters' minds. Romney's party favors smaller government and lower taxes--issues that have divided Americans greatly in recent years. Political analysts E.J. Dionne and Ross Douthat join Diane to talk about our divided nation and what can be done about it.
Guests
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, The Brookings Institution, columnist, Washington Post and author of "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Ross Douthat
Op-Ed columnist, The New York Times; author of "Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics."
Read An Excerpt
Excerpt from "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent" by E.J. Dionne. Copyright 2012 by E.J. Dionne. Reprinted here by permission of Bloomsbury USA. All rights reserved.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Valvefloat on May 30, 2012 @ 10:41 am wrote: “In the 19th century, Federal spending was well below 10 percent of the GDP. In the 20th centruy it was under 20 percent of GDP, on average. Currently, Federal spending is about 25 percent of GDP. . . .the shift is towards excess communitarianism--not towards excess individualism. . . .”
Even assuming your numbers are correct (which I don’t, some proof would be nice), I fail to see the relevance to “individualism” versus “communitarianism”.
Just what is that spending composed of? For example, there has been a great increase in Military spending. Is that “communitarian”? What about spending to clean up and preserve the environment? How many individuals do you know can survive without clean air or water?
Simplistic arguments like yours are the hallmark of ideology run amok.
Arkus Duntov on May 30, 2012 @ 11:08 am wrote: “This is what the progressive welfare state brings us, more dependency.”
You know, Arkus, I almost don’t have to respond to this one, you’re doing such a great job of discrediting yourself.
Which part of that story about disabled veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is attributable to the “progressive welfare state”?
Was it a “progressive” that started those wars? That’s one epithet I’ve never heard applied to Bush the Second.
Is the increase in claimed injuries merely the result of a “welfare state”, or perhaps the fact that modern warfare has “progressively” become more damaging to those who have to fight it (unlike, say, smug conservatives who stay safely at home prattling about “freedom”)?
If you bothered to read the article, you’d know one reason for the increase is “because body armor and improved battlefield care allowed many of them to survive wounds that in past wars proved fatal.”
In other words, these soldiers just didn’t have the “grace” to die!
I just love the way the right-wing babbles about “supporting” our brave troops unless it costs money! “Use ‘em (in war), then loose ‘em (afterward)” - that seems to be your philosophy!
Arkus Duntov on May 30, 2012 @ 11:34 am wrote: “Understand the meaning of the words as used at the time it was written, they were as a whole not in favor of ‘big federal government’ that is why they gave so much power to the states.”
PART ONE
Clearly you don’t understand the meaning of the words used in the Constitution, nor the context of those words. All you are doing is imposing your ideology on the text (and claiming it as “original intent” - one of the big problems with that “theory”).
The Founders didn’t “give” any power to the States. Originally, the States were regarded as completely independent nations, bound together by a loose compact known as The Articles of Confederation. That document was your dream - it created a Federal government so weak it couldn’t even raise revenue on its own, and it let trade wars and other squabbles between the States almost tear the nation apart.
Because of that, the Articles were scrapped in favor of the Constitution - one of whose purposes was to create a much stronger Federal government. But, that document didn’t “give” any power to the States. In fact, it took away many powers (including the power to create ex post facto laws, which make actions a crime after you’ve done them). The Constitution also took away State power that was “given” to the Federal government (the correct term is “delegated”).
Which brings us to the “laundry list” of Article 1, Section 8. “Conservatives” tend to regard that as the sole grant of Federal power, and try to argue that only the power expressly stated there was granted. Both views are wrong.
If you bother to study the history of the original Constitution (both the debates and The Federalist Papers), the history of the Bill of Rights, and the rulings of the Supreme Court you’ll see how wrong and simplistic your view is. Two examples:
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
In creating what became the Tenth Amendment, James Madison repeatedly (and successfully) resisted the attempt to add the word “expressly” to it. Thus the Amendment speaks of the powers “delegated to the United States”, and not just those expressly delegated.
See, James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights, by Richard Labunski (Oxford University Press, 2006), pages 229 - 230.
This omission, so different from the Articles of Confederation (which did declare the Federal government had only such powers that were expressly delegated), was one fact that led the Supreme Court to reject such a narrow view of Federal power. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819).
Is the Federal government’s power more limited than that of the States? Of course, but the extent of that limitation, and the reason for it, have nothing to do with the Laissez-Faire or Libertarian nonsense proffered by “conservatives” like you. I repeat: neither doctrine has any place in the Constitution!
Smoot on May 30, 2012 @ 11:39 am wrote: “It is foolish to compromise these days - what compromise means to the left is for the right to give in.”
False! But a classic example of the “right” accusing others of what they are guilty of themselves.
For you “compromise” = capitulation. Thus you won’t “give an inch”, and are even ready to destroy the country’s economy to get your way. (What is our credit rating right now?)
Democrats offered $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Republi-Cons rejected it. During the primary debates, the Presidential wannabees were asked if they’d accept a 10:1 cuts to taxes ratio. Again, the answer was no. Republi-Cons want just one thing: more tax cuts (mainly for the wealthy and for corporations).
Of course, they’re at least being consistent: their “compromise” requires the nation to capitulate!
Arkus Duntov on May 30, 2012 - 11:56 am wrote: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Oh, good, let’s play the game of battling quotes. (Yours taken out of context, of course, with no source provided for us to check the accuracy or relevance).
I’ll give you two in reply (with sources).
The first is extremely relevant to the question of Federalism (State vs. Federal power):
“It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. . . . in like manner as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.”
- James Madison, Federalist Paper #45, page 286 of the Signet Classic Edition (2003)
And the second concerns the Federal government’s power to directly impose taxes. The argument was made that it should:
“go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!”
Hamilton, Federalist Paper #36, page 219 of the Signet Classic Edition.
Hmm, tax the rich instead of the poor. Hamilton was a Socialist! Who knew?
NotAntiGovernment on May 30, 2012 @ 12:56 pm wrote: “the left refuses to listen to the details, and routinely paints everyone that is "not" progressive liberal socialist, as being radical.”
Ha, ha, ha, very funny.
(Oh, you were being serious?)
You’ve just “painted” anyone who disagrees with your views as being a “socialist” - the generic epithet Tea Baggers and Republi-Cons use to describe anyone they disagree with.
There is a difference between being a progressive, a liberal, and a socialist. Just as there are differences between being a conservative and being a radical conservative. (Though thanks to the Tea Baggers, that distinction is almost extinct, given that they brand as RINO’s anyone who doesn’t “toe the party line”.)
So, once again we see contemporary “conservatives” falsely accusing others of what they are guilty of themselves!
Oops. Sorry, a computer glitch duplicated that previous Comment. So I've "edited" the duplicate out of existence.
In the words of Obi-Wan: You can go about your business, move along.
NotAntiGovernment on May 30, 2012 @ 12:56 pm wrote: “What we want is a government of Dem. John Kennedy, who by today's standards was quite fiscally conservative and financially responsible!”
Oh, please. The conservatives of his day (falsely) accused him of Socialism, and trampling on “States’ Rights”, the same way “conservatives” today do to Obama, and any Democratic President.
In point of fact, the deficit increased two of the three years he was in office (and he ran deficits all of those years). And during those years the top income tax rate was between 77 and 91 percent!
Yeah, let’s go back to the kind of government JFK ran!
Sources:
The World Almanac of 2010, page 63.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html?print=t
NotAntiGovernment on May 30, 2012 @ 12:56 pm wrote: “Since Clinton took over in the 1990's we 'would' now have to hire a $80K+ per year H.R. Expert, and have an attorney on retainer just to navigate the many phone-book thick legislative laws inflicted on us, even with as few as 1 employee.”
I won’t ask you to cite all the laws you are complaining about, much less demonstrate that they all come from the Federal government. Just tell me about the laws that apply “with as few as 1 employee”. With the possible exception of the Tax Code, I know of none. Most laws apply only to businesses with far more employees than that! (Oh, and local building codes, etc., don’t count. They, and laws like them, have nothing to do with whether you have employees.)
NotAntiGovernment on May 30, 2012 @ 12:56 pm wrote: “We cannot walk, drive, eat, breath, travel, go to the doctor, . . . or absolutely ANYTHING without facing laws of some sort, . . . . I can't put an A/C on top of my house without an act of congress! There is absolutely NO freedom of any kind in this country! I've been to Asia and even Eastern Europe. Both are far more free than we are here. Period.”
For someone trying to convince us the Tea Baggers aren’t “radical”, mindless, anti-government extremists, you just blew it!
(That’s what happens when blind ideology replaces fact and reason.)
Yeah, we have (State) laws telling us not to jaywalk, and to drive on the right side of the road, obey speed limits and traffic lights. The poor doctor is only allowed to prescribe medications proven both safe and effective, instead of good, old fashioned, snake oil! (And they have to be licensed by the government too. Imagine it. Surgeons have to demonstrate knowledge and competence before they cut you into pieces!)
Not only that, but the government can also control what religion you practice, what you say or read, and can throw you in prison without so much as a trial. (What? It can’t! Oh never mind.)
Tell me what “act of congress” controls the A/C on your housetop? (Local building codes, maybe.)
North Korea (in Asia) is “far more free” than here? Pakistan, Myanmar, Vietnam, China?
I won’t even bother discussing Eastern Europe.
No, sir, you are a true Tea Bagger: mindlessly Anti-Government!
NotAntiGovernment on May 30, 2012 @ 1:10 pm wrote: “That 'Conservative' was more leftist than the 'Rhinos' that we just removed from office last November, . . . . This is another example that a previous commenter made, that Progressive idea of ‘compromise’ is everyone else gives up what they want, except the progressives."
I rest my case (Republi-Cons falsely accuse others of what they are actually guilty of). For Republi-Cons and Tea Baggers any deviation from the “party line” gets you tossed out as a RINO. (Can’t even spell it correctly, can you?)
By the way, you do realize that by the “standards” of those groups some major past Republican Presidents (and politicians) would have no chance in the GOP primaries today.
Teddy Roosevelt: trust buster and promoter of environmentalism, who inveighed against “malefactors of great wealth”.
Eisenhower: who created one of the greatest public works projects in our history (the Interstate Highway system), and trampled on “States’ Rights” when he sent the Army to enforce desegregation in Arkansas. (And warned about the “military-industrial complex”.)
Goldwater: who wanted to kick Pat Robertson where the sun don’t shine, and supported gays in the military.
Reagan: who ran record deficits, raised taxes to offset some of it, signed the Emergency Medical Treatment Act (which mandates people receive emergency life saving care regardless of whether they can pay for it), and once told Ken Burns that using government funds as “seed money” for his PBS documentaries (such as The Civil War) was exactly the right thing to do.
(The rest of your drivel isn't worthy of response.)
meangreen on May 30, 2012 @ 11:30 pm wrote: “Wish you could of been in my city 2 -3 years ago and seen the minorities in front of the Alamo cheering on the Tea Party.”
While I certainly don’t subscribe to what Martyn wrote, neither can I put much credit in your response.
One swallow does not make a summer, and the fact that there are minorities “cheering on the Tea Party” proves nothing. There were “honorary Aryans” (Jews) who served as good little Nazis too.
Not everyone in the Tea Party is racist, but there are certainly plenty of racists drawn to it, and supporting it. My proof? All those signs at the various rallies depicting Obama as a half-naked witch doctor. I don’t think it was because they liked his bod!
meangreen on May 30, 2012 @ 11:35 pm wrote: “The year was 1966 to help pay for the Vietnam War and the ‘Great Society’ which turn out to be wasted tax money. Could of been done better with the non profits and at less cost.”
Actually, both parties have been “stealing” from Social Security for decades. (Reagan did it to pay for his tax cuts, for example.)
As for the merits of the “Great Society”, there isn’t enough room to debate that here. (Though I admit to skepticism about it when first proposed, and continuing to today.) However, if “non-profits” were the solution, then why was Medicare and Medicaid even necessary in the first place? Answer: despite wishful thinking by conservatives, the private sector (even not-for-profits) can’t handle the task, and didn’t try.
Smoot on May 31, 2012 @ 8:09 am wrote: “The left will say and do anything, and that is how they have to be fought.”
Leaving aside your conclusory utterances and accusations, made without a shred of proof, I’m glad you admitted the conservative strategy is to lie through your teeth to win.
Hey, maybe Romney will tell us that unless he’s elected, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction will be found and “mushroom clouds” will blossom everywhere!
I find it fascinating, and very telling, that when reviewing a book by E.J. Dionne Ms. Rehm had to provide an opportunity for a rebuttal by a tea-bagger (something that does not happen when reviewing a conservative authors book)! Who is she afraid of?! Her corporate master, perhaps. This is why I don't contribute to "public" radio or television that accepts corporate "sponsorship". How disappointing!
Hmm, bkochandco, right-wingers complain the show is too liberal, left-wingers that it's too conservative.
Sounds as if the show is "just right" (as in correct).
I don't see how we can have this discussion without admitting to the fact that conservatives have skewed the perception of the center with their culture war, their lies and distortions of facts. It's a constant battle, it keeps progressives in a state of defense and it's a strategy that has worked very well for the GOP.
The center is defined by where the American people stand on individual issues. On almost every single issue outside of the culture war, progressives stand with the majority. From SS & Medicare, ending tax cuts for the rich to deal with the debt, sensible regulations to protect workers, consumers and investors, cuts in military spending, protecting the environment, to moving towards more efficient energy. The majority supports all of these causes. Welfare is very unpopular but the majority agrees that we can't eliminate it. Republicans hold on to a false belief that there is widespread abuse of the welfare system, of course the facts don't back this up but Republicans in power will not acknowledge a fact that might help the opposition. Republicans in power never move to eliminate welfare, they know they can't survive politically if they do yet they continue to gain votes because of resentment of poor people which their media perpetuates.
For the most part, the issues of the culture war have been decided and Congress and the White House do not play much of a role yet people continue to vote on abortion, guns and marriage. They don't seem to care about or understand the real agenda of the GOP.
It seems pretty hopeless to me. We're divided culturally and that keeps Republicans in power. If we want to discuss what's really dividing the country, this interview didn't address much of anything.
When we start calling Republicans liars, even when the facts are on our side as they usually are, we're told we're part of the problem.